Stabilization and Delay

[buzz]

I agree. Arguing for anything else is pretty clearly rules-lawyering abusiveness.

Easy there, pal.

 

[moritheil]

I conceed that my argument isn't perfect. E.g., the 5-ft step is also "Not an action," and there's no way an unconscious PC can do that.

It's pretty clear at this point in the dialogue that you resist the RAW interpretations on the board because you have a mental picture of what should and should not be possible. If you want to run it that way because it suits your game better, knock yourself out. The board posters can only give you their RAW interpretations.

I'll run this by WotC customer service later.

Seems like a lot of effort to get an answer which may or may not be correct and will be summarily rejected by vast swathes of gamers as being unofficial under the rules of precedence and errata, but as I said, knock yourself out.

 

[buzz]

Seems like a lot of effort to get an answer which may or may not be correct and will be summarily rejected by vast swathes of gamers as being unofficial under the rules of precedence and errata, but as I said, knock yourself out.

I'm not concerned about "vast swathes of gamers." I'm not trying to get elected or anything.

Why do people have to get so testy? I wouldn't have posted the question here if I wasn't interested in input. Both sides make sense to me, hence wanting to ask.

Sheesh. :\

 

[moritheil]

I'm not concerned about "vast swathes of gamers." I'm not trying to get elected or anything.

Why do people have to get so testy? I wouldn't have posted the question here if I wasn't interested in input. Both sides make sense to me, hence wanting to ask.

Sheesh. :\

I can't speak for others - as for myself, I'm not testy, just incredulous.

 

[MarkB]

See, I don't think this is true.

SRD w/r/t Delay: "Your initiative result becomes the count on which you took the delayed action."

Yes. For future rounds. Not for the round in which you chose to Delay.

It doens't give you another init count, it gives you a new init count. Otherwise, it would follow that you risked losing hp both when you chose to Delay and when you took the Delayed action. That makes even less sense to me.

Your whole argument makes no sense to me. Basically, you're suggesting that your character can, while unconscious, decide "I don't feel like bleeding to death right now. I think I'll wait and do it later." No way is that possible.

Note that a character can continue to Delay their action indefinitely, over multiple rounds. By your interpretation, a dying character could continue Delaying indefinitely and never lose any more hit points.

 

[Artoomis]

I can't speak for others - as for myself, I'm not testy, just incredulous.

I'm with you. Amazing stuff, trying to "Delay" loss of hp from going below zero.

 

[buzz]

The source of the whole discussion was my Saturday game. A PC got hammered and the player made his check on some count other than his PC's; I think it was the count of the enemy who hit him. I questioned him about this later, and he claimed that it was a pretty common house rule (he has strong rules-fu, trust me) that was in keeping with the old 3.0 intent of giving the PC a chance to get "rescued."

Now, my initial review of the RAW led me to saying exactly what you and everyone else are: you roll on your count, and them's the breaks.

But, then I thought about the aformentioned HERO System. In HERO, an unconscious or dying PC's SPD (the stat that determines when you act), drops to the bare minimum. This prevents fast PCs for being penalized, i.e., from "dying faster."

Then, I thought about Delay, and that it wasn't an action, and it seemed like the same sort of thing. You drop the unconscious guy to the bottom of the init count via Delay to give him a chance to get healed.

As far as "abusiveness" goes, I don't really see any. The only situation in which this really makes a difference is the PC who gets immediately dropped from positive hp to exactly -9hp right before his turn. And, even then, it may do him no good of no one else in the party is in a position to help that round. In any other situation, it really doesn't make a difference.

I'm not claiming RAW firmly supports this, just that it seemes reasonable. Ergo, I'd be curious to see if WotC feels it's within the RAW's intent.

 

[buzz]

By your interpretation, a dying character could continue Delaying indefinitely and never lose any more hit points.

No, I addressed this in the OP.

 

[AuraSeer]

If a player gave me a plausible in-game explanation for this, I might be convinced to allow it. That's because I can't think of any such explanation myself, and I like to reward creativity.

Without an in-game rationale, this is clearly an abuse of the initiative rules. IMC, attempted lawyering of this caliber is met with scorn and derision, and insistence is rewarded with negative XP.

 

[Artoomis]

The source of the whole discussion was my Saturday game. A PC got hammered and the player made his check on some count other than his PC's; I think it was the count of the enemy who hit him. I questioned him about this later, and he claimed that it was a pretty common house rule (he has strong rules-fu, trust me) that was in keeping with the old 3.0 intent of giving the PC a chance to get "rescued."...

I tend go agree with this. It makes sense. In rules terms, It's a sort of involuntary delay until just after enemy's turn.

So it would to like this, for example let's say the enemy has a 12 init and you have a 10:

Init 10: (from last round) You hit enemy
Init 12: Enemy hits and bring you to -1.
Init 10: Nothing happen to your character except he gets his init moved to 13 (or 12.1, if you like - after the enemy but before anyone else).
Inti 12: enemy does something
Init 13: (or 12.1, maybe) you bleed and take lose 1 hp if you fail the save

Your buddies then have a chance at rescuing you for one round before you go down a hp.

No quite RAW, but completely reasonable. It also means if you get rescued right away you still cannot act until just after the enemy's turn, which seems fair and reasonable.